About 14% of premature deaths in England attributable to unhealthy food, the most among surveyed countries

Consuming large amounts of ultra-processed food (UPF) increases the risk of an early death, according to a international study that has reignited calls for a crackdown on UPF.

Each 10% extra intake of UPF, such as bread, cakes and ready meals, increases someone’s risk of dying before they reach 75 by 3%, according to research in countries including the US and England.

UPF is so damaging to health that it is implicated in as many as one in seven of all premature deaths that occur in some countries, according to a paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

They are associated with 124,107 early deaths in the US a year and 17,781 deaths every year in England, the review of dietary and mortality data from eight countries found.

  • modeler@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    8 hours ago

    Scientists only use terms like ultra processed food after defining them in their scientific papers. The problem here is that the media find it difficult to write a short article for the general audience if they have to define things scientifically.

    What specifically is bad about UPF foods is still being researched. A few leading ideas are:

    • Very little fibre
    • Starches are all immediately accessible to digestion and so blood glucose spikes much more than for the non-UPF equivalent
    • UPF foods are soft and dry (so weigh less) making it very easy to eat a lot very fast, so you eat too many calories.
    • Relatively high in salt and sugar
    • Use of emulsifiers. These may change your gut microbiota and also make your gut more leaky causing inflammation
    • Use of preservatives and artificial colours
    • Frequently have a lot of oil

    Low fibre, emulsifiers and preservatives, while lacking variety of phytochemicals found in fresh food is known to change your gut health. People on UPF diets tend to eat more and have higher blood glucose spikes leading to heart disease and diabetes.

    Altogether this is a recipe for a shorter, less healthy life

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      7 hours ago

      Those are shit definitions that come from pop-science not real science. They’re so broad as to be functionally useless.

      • exasperation@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        4 hours ago

        The NOVA classification system is “real” science, but in my opinion the arbitrary and vague definitions make it so that it’s not very good or very robust science.

        • turmacar@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 hours ago

          “Very little fiber”, “Frequently have a lot of oil”, and “Relatively high in salt and sugar” aren’t a classification, they’re vibes.

          “Use of Emulsifiers” is worthless. Eggs, garlic, and butter are emulsifiers.

          NOVA is not about finding stuff out, it’s about creating a science-y sounding framework to replace the food pyramid.

    • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      6 hours ago

      Use of emulsifiers.
      Frequently have a lot of oil

      Oh no, not my mayo!

      …is aioli ok or do saponins count as emulsifier, here?